A liberal nightmare is a fear that they will run out of victim categories. It almost happened with American prosperity in the 50s. But they finally beat it. And now it’s time to expand the categories and start the ugly affirmative action lawsuits.
The galloping injustice of “lookism” has not escaped psychologists, economists, sociologists, and legal scholars. Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode’s 2010 book, “The Beauty Bias,” lamented “the injustice of appearance in life and law,” while University of Texas, Austin economist Daniel Hamermesh’s 2011 “Beauty Pays,” recently out in paperback, traced the concrete benefits of attractiveness, including a $230,000 lifetime earnings advantage over the unattractive.
Some have proposed legal remedies including designating unattractive people as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for the homely, or compensating disfigured but otherwise healthy people in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind interviews that take attraction out of job selection. There’s promising evidence from psychology that good old-fashioned consciousness-raising has a role to play, too.
That’s from a Washington Post Ideas piece. Who are the “some”. Well they include Daniel Hamermesh in a New York Times op-ed from 2011.
A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?
In an age when Obama Inc is demanding that movie theaters accommodate the blind.. why not?
Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
So ugliness is now a disability?
Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.
Who would benefit from affirmative action for the ugly?
For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population
What is this really about? The money.
“Ugliness” is not a personal trait that many people choose to embrace; those whom we classify as protected might not be willing to admit that they are ugly. But with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000 in lost lifetime earnings, there’s a large enough incentive to do so.
If we can get hordes of fake Indians, I’m sure we’ll get lots of people who insist that ugliness ruined their lives.
Bringing anti-discrimination lawsuits is also costly, and few potential plaintiffs could afford to do so. But many attorneys would be willing to organize classes of plaintiffs to overcome these costs, just as they now do in racial-discrimination and other lawsuits.
This is America. This is America on Obama.